Current best evidence for clinical care (more info)
Introduction Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread throughout the world with a large medical and economic impact. On March 12, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified SARS-CoV-2 as a pandemic. As a result of this worldwide public health crisis, politicians, elected officials, and healthcare professionals emergently began trialing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in efforts to treat and prevent the transmission of the virus. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the effects of HCQ on patients with COVID-19. Methods This meta-analysis adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMA) guidelines. Selected articles published between December 2019 and July 2020 were found utilizing the following search engines: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, DisasterLit, Clinicaltrials.gov, Medrxiv, and Embase. Two independent physician reviewers screened eligible articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the analysis. The outcome measures analyzed were mortality rate, rate of disease progression/improvement, rate of disease severity, and adverse effects of treatment. Six out of 14 studies that met the study's eligibility criteria were selected and further analyzed, with a total of 381 participants (n= 381). Conclusion From the studies analyzed, it was found that groups treated with HCQ had an overall mortality rate that was 2.5 times greater than that of the control group. HCQ treated patients had higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes and side effects compared with the control populations. Lastly, there was a 1.2 times higher rate of improvement in the group of HCQ treated patients with mild to moderate symptoms as compared to the control group.
| Discipline / Specialty Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists | |
| Internal Medicine | |
| Infectious Disease | |
| Intensivist/Critical Care | |
This study has serious methodological issues. In Section A - Meta-analysis of mortality rates, the authors have meta-analysed two studies. The first (Chen et al) was a study with two arms: hydroxychloroquine vs conventional treatment. The second study (Borba et al) compared low vs high dose chloroquine (there was no group which did not receive chloroquine). Despite the obvious difference in design, the authors have pooled these studies, assigning the low dose as a control group !!!
It is a outcome based meta analysis and definitely useful for physicians Treating COVID. The analysis is quite robust in design.